[laffs] Fw: Re: Fw: FAA Restrictions
- From: "Gene Hatfield" <hatter@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <"Undisclosed-Recipient:;"@freelists.org>
- Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 12:24:38 -0600
Hi Guys, I received this reply from John Swanson and want
to pass it on. At this stage of the game, we don't know how this will end.
Guess we will have to wait until the restrictions
will be published. I didn't know this was old info. Thanks John, for your input
!! Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Fredda & John Swanson
To: laffs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 10:05 AM
Subject: [laffs] Re: Fw: FAA Restrictions
Gene,
"I contacted Dave Mathewson yesterday, and like I suspected, this is an
old release, around September or October.
AMA did NOT send this to ANN.
Evidently this release was laying around ANN for months, and on a slow
news day, they published it without checking with the AMA to see if the points
were still relevant.
The FAA addressed all these issues at the AMA expo in January. "
From RCU today.
John Swanson
--- On Wed, 2/9/11, Gene Hatfield <hatter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Gene Hatfield <hatter@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [laffs] Fw: FAA Restrictions
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;@freelists.org
Date: Wednesday, February 9, 2011, 6:11 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: Darwin Loomis
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 7:04 PM
Subject: Fw: FAA Restrictions
AMA: FAA Seeks To Restrict Model Aircraft Flight
Academy Of Model Aeronautics Warns About Heavy Restrictions Coming From
Washington
The Academy of Model Aeronautics tells ANN that the FAA is set to
place "heavy restrictions" on the hobbyists who fly model aircraft. In a
circular sent to ANN over the weekend, the AMA indicates that the agency is
poised to impose severe restrictions on the model aviation hobby, sport and
industry that will have a potentially devastating impact on a recreational and
educational activity pursued by hundreds of thousands of enthusiasts, tens of
thousands of employees and an industry that generates more than $1 billion in
revenue.
According to the AMA, the FAA created an Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(ARC) in 2008 tasked with proposing recommendations for small unmanned aircraft
systems (sUAS) that have been proliferating, particularly those in the
commercial realm. The ARC’s charge was to draft recommended rules relative to
establishing regulations for commercial sUAS and to define model aircraft –
nothing more. AMA’s members are strictly hobbyists, sportsmen and educators.
They are recreational users that do not participate in commercial activities.
AMA was assured that the recreational modeler would be exempted from regulation.
In 2008, the ARC began its work with 20 members, more than half of
which were from the commercial and public sectors with partisan interests. AMA
was the lone seat for the hobbyist. AMA’s says its views and concerns were
quickly swept aside in the haste to create enabling regulation for the
commercial/public use sUAS industry. Subsequent protests and historical data
presented by AMA have been repeatedly dismissed.
In March 2009, the ARC submitted its report to the FAA recommending a
two-path approach for model aviation. This two-path approach proposes a
“default path” that contains a devastating set of heavy-handed regulations and
restrictions that will have a detrimental impact on the industry and thousands
of aeromodeling enthusiasts not involved in AMA’s membership or programming.
Alternatively, AMA must develop and fund an acceptable set of standards in
order to overcome the restrictive effects of the default regulations. The
two-path approach is extremely problematic and will adversely affect the
aeromodeling community. AMA voiced strong opposition to this approach in the
ARC’s report to the FAA.
AMA says that over the past 18 months it has worked diligently in an
attempt to develop an acceptable set of standards to address FAA concerns. At
the same time, however, the ground rules continue to change, creating a moving
target and mounting frustration.
AMA believes that the proposed regulations fail to address the
substantial diversity of the hobby and its applications and establishes
unenforceable restrictions, while leaving absent a safety surveillance program
to support the thousands of modelers outside of AMA’s formal structure and
standards.
Large Model Aircraft
Although the exact language of the proposed regulation is not yet
known, there are a number of conclusions that can be drawn from the ARC
recommendations. The following are AMA’s areas of concern, the restrictions
that are likely to be imposed and their effect on the model aviation community:
a.. ALTITUDE: As proposed, the rule would impose a nationwide
altitude ceiling of 400 feet. AMA recognizes the need for altitude limitations
when model aircraft are operated in close proximity to airports, and this
concept is supported in AMA’s current Safety Code. However, a nationwide
altitude ceiling for model aircraft is impractical, unnecessary, unrealistic
and unenforceable through any reasonable means of compliance and detection.
b.. SPEED: It is likely that the rule will attempt to limit model
aircraft performance by establishing a set speed limit such as 100 mph.
Imposing such a speed limit will have little to no effect on aircraft
performance and is both undetectable and unenforceable through any practical,
cost-effective means.
c.. WEIGHT: As proposed, the sUAS rule will limit small unmanned
aircraft to 55 pounds or less, and the implication for AMA’s Large Model
Aircraft Program has not yet been determined. Without an acceptable standard or
an alternative means of compliance, this rule may well curtail a vital element
of the modeling activity that drives creativity, innovation and technological
development.
d.. TURBINE BAN: The blanket prohibition of gas turbine engines
suggested in the ARC recommendations does not consider the wide range of
products currently in the marketplace. The inclusion of this prohibition in the
proposed rule will impose a significant and unjustified economic impact on the
industry.
e.. AIRPORT PROXIMITY: It is understood that the FAA is considering
going outside the ARC’s recommendation and extending the “area of concern”
around the nation’s 19,760 airports beyond the current 3-mile radius that has
been the standard for more than 29 years. The intent to extend this radius has
absolutely no statistical basis, has no supporting data and has no accident or
incident correlation. Doing so would exponentially impact the number of
existing flying sites affected by the rule. Extending the radius by as little
as 2 miles (to 5 miles) would nearly triple the area of concern and create more
than 1,784,000 square miles in which “no fly without permission” restrictions
would be imposed.
It is the position of the AMA that, based upon the direction the rule
is headed, it is clearly evident that the intent is not to objectively evaluate
the model aircraft operations and realistically assess the risks. It is rather
to unfairly eliminate model aviation from the safety equation by arbitrarily
eliminating it from the airspace it has revered and safely used for decades.
The organization urges all who are in favor of full analysis, regulatory
restraint and fair play to help AMA save a hobby, a dynamic sport, a vital
educational pursuit, and a $1 billion industry from what it says is undue
government intervention that will have devastating consequences.
FMI: http://modelaircraft.org/, www.faa.gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight
and hotel bargains.
Other related posts:
- » [laffs] Fw: Re: Fw: FAA Restrictions - Gene Hatfield
